PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of gutGutVisit this articleSubmit a manuscriptReceive email alertsContact usBMJ
 
Gut. 2007 September; 56(9): 1177–1180.
Published online 2007 April 20. doi:  10.1136/gut.2007.120691
PMCID: PMC1954954

Stress‐related changes in oesophageal permeability: filling the gaps of GORD?

Abstract

Albeit remaining a controversial issue, it has become increasingly recognised that psychological stress has a major impact on gut mucosal function and affects the course of gastrointestinal disorders. Research during the last decade has shown that stress causes barrier dysfunction of the gastrointestinal mucosa by mechanisms that mainly involve neuropeptides and mast cells. Moreover, accumulating evidence implicates increased permeability as a pathogenic factor in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD). Recent data demonstrating that psychological stress may induce a permeability defect in stratified epithelia, including the oesophagus, shed new light on the pathophysiological events leading to heartburn and GORD.

Keywords: barrier function, corticotropin‐releasing hormone, mast cells, psychological stress

It has become increasingly recognised that various types of stress have a major impact on gastrointestinal physiology, thereby causing dysfunction and/or diseases. For example, stress is involved in the pathogenesis of gastric stress ulcers and peptic ulcer disease.1 Moreover, early stressful life events and sustained stress may predispose to the development of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)2 and affect the course of inflammatory bowel disease.3 In addition, a majority of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD) report stress as an important trigger of symptom exacerbation.4 The subject of stress‐induced effects on intestinal diseases does, however, remain a controversial issue, and our understanding of the intricate neuro‐immuno‐physiology involved in stress effects on intestinal mucosal functions is only beginning to evolve (for a comprehensive review, see Söderholm and Perdue5). In a recent report on psychological stress‐induced effects on oesophageal permeability, Farré et al.6 shed new light on the pathophysiology of GORD.

…early stressful life events and sustained stress may predispose to the development of irritable bowel syndrome…

Stress

Although everyone has experienced life stresses of various sorts and degrees, stress is difficult to define. This is mainly due to the subjective experience of stress, with very large variations in the capacity to cope with stressful situations.7 The most commonly used definition was put forward by Selye:8 “stress is any threat to the homeostasis of an organism”. This threat can be real (physical) or perceived (psychological), caused by events in the environment or from within the individual itself (for example, by inflammation).

Regardless of type of stress, the principal responses to maintain homeostasis are similar, including the behavioural response (such as anxiety), autonomic responses (such as raised heart rate), and the hypothalamic‐pituitary‐adrenal axis response (such as cortisol release),2 with corticotropin‐releasing hormone (CRH) being an important mediator. When the healthy individual encounters a challenge, the physiological response systems are quickly turned on and off, matching the duration and severity of the stressor, a so‐called adaptive response. A harmful—that is, maladaptive (pathological stress) response—may occur through three types of reactions: stress overload, failure to shut down or inadequate responses.7 A maladaptive response may thus be induced by a one‐time life‐threatening stress, but is more frequently caused by chronic daily‐life stressors, such as loss, financial problems, unemployment and so on. Individuals with maladaptive responses will be predisposed to disease in multiple organ systems, including in the gastrointestinal tract (eg, exacerbations of IBS,9 ulcerative colitis10 or GORD).11 One of the mechanisms connecting psychological stress and gastrointestinal diseases is stress‐induced effects on mucosal barrier function.

One of the mechanisms connecting psychological stress and gastrointestinal diseases is stress‐induced effects on mucosal barrier function

Stress and gastrointestinal barrier function

From a clinical perspective, animal models of chronic stress may be more relevant than models of acute stress. Chronic stress has pronounced effects on host defence against luminal bacteria12,13,14 and affects CD4+ T cells,15,16 with consequences for the development of intestinal inflammation in animal models. On the other hand, studies in humans indicate that acute stress may influence the symptoms of gastrointestinal disorders, including GORD, by altering mucosal function, motility or visceral perception.4,11,17,18,19 Rodents exposed to acute stress show perturbed small‐bowel and colonic permeability, including increased paracellular permeability to ions and molecules of various sizes,15,20 along with altered expression of TJ proteins, ZO‐2 and occludin.21 Moreover, increased transcellular uptake of macromolecules via stimulated endocytosis is found.22,23 Acute psychological stress may also affect the intestinal barrier to luminal bacteria.13

The neuro‐endocrine factors that mediate intestinal mucosal function during stress have not been fully clarified, but include acetylcholine, neurotensin, substance P and CRH, with CRH being the major mediator of various stress‐induced abnormalities, including those of a gastrointestinal nature. It is believed that stress impulses are transmitted from the brain to the gatrointestinal tract mainly via the vagal nerve, but sympathetic efferents may also be involved.24,25,26,27 Stress‐induced functional changes of the intestine can be inhibited by the CRH receptor antagonist, α‐helical CRH9–41, given peripherally,23 as well as centrally.27 Moreover, both peripheral and central injections of CRH mimic stress responses in the gastrointestinal tract.23,27,28,29 Two subtypes of CRH receptors—CRH‐R1 and CRH‐R2—have been found in the colonic mucosa.30 CRH‐R1 was shown to mediate stress effects on intestinal motor function,28 but the relative importance of the CRH receptors regarding mucosal function is currently not known. CRH‐mediated effects in the intestinal mucosa are associated with the secretion of rat mast cell protease II (RMCPII; the rodent equivalent to tryptase), activation of mast cells by microscopy, and can be inhibited by mast‐cell stabilisers, which suggests that CRH acts via mucosal mast cells. Similarly, the importance of mast cells in acute stress‐related changes in intestinal function has been highlighted—for example, by increased release of mast‐cell proteases during stress,18,29 inhibition of stress‐induced changes by pharmacological stabilisation of mast cells,21,23,29 and ultrastructural mast‐cell activation in combination with barrier disturbances during stress.22,31 Moreover, stress‐induced barrier dysfunction does not occur in mast‐cell‐deficient mice (Wv/Wv) or rats (Ws/Ws).12,32,33 Several mast‐cell‐released factors may be the mediators of mucosal dysfunction, for example TNFα and IFNγ with well‐recognised effects on intestinal barrier function,21,34,35 and tryptase, which could affect permeability via activation of protease‐activated‐receptor‐2.36,37

Taken together, animal studies suggest that acute stress‐induced intestinal barrier dysfunction, to a large extent, is mediated by CRH operating via activation of mucosal mast cells. It is also known that acute psychological stress in humans affects jejunal ion secretion,17 and that neuro‐immune regulation of intestinal ion transport does occur in humans, mainly via mast cells.18,38 However, studies looking specifically at the effects of psychological stress on gastrointestinal permeability in humans are lacking, and the mechanisms remain to be elucidated.

…acute stress‐induced intestinal barrier dysfunction, to a large extent, is mediated by CRH operating via activation of mucosal mast cells.

Pathophysiology of GORD

The pathophysiology of GORD has been extensively reviewed in papers by Fass and Tougas,4 and Barlow and Orlando.39 GORD is often divided into non‐erosive reflux disease (NERD) and erosive oesophagitis; NERD is defined as GORD symptoms (mainly heartburn) with normal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The main theories on the pathogenesis of heartburn in NERD are oesophageal visceral hypersensitivity, sustained oesophageal contractions and abnormal tissue resistance.

Oesophageal visceral hypersensitivity—that is, increased reactivity to physiological amounts of acid—is thought to arise from peripheral sensitisation of afferents. The oesophageal mucosa receives vagal afferents, which are polymodal and under normal circumstances not consciously perceived, and mucosal spinal afferents, which are primarily nociceptors located in epithelial intercellular spaces (three cell layers from the lumen), and are likely to be involved in acid‐induced oesophageal pain.40 The sensitisation of the afferents may be caused either by inappropriately heightened perception due to neuronal dysfunction, or by appropriately heightened perception because of greater access to acid in the nociceptors. Evidence of neuronal dysfunction in NERD was found when perfusion with acid in the human oesophagus reduced the pain threshold to electrical stimulation in non‐exposed mucosal areas and also increased the velocity in afferent pathways.41 Moreover, studies have shown altered heart rate variability in GORD patients, indicative of dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system.42 On the other hand, NERD patients are sensitive to acid exposure in the oesophagus, but are not inherently hypersensitive to mechanical stimulation,43 suggesting that the hypersensitivity may be due to acid stimulation of the nociceptors.

Sustained oesophageal contractions represent prolonged contractions of the oesophageal longitudinal smooth‐muscle layer. These contractions often correlate with spontaneous heartburn as well as a positive Bernstein test,44 but in other studies they were associated with atypical chest pain. Sustained oesophageal contractions may thus be induced by acid exposure and contribute to the symptom of heartburn, but may also be linked with chest pain of oesophageal origin irrespective of the type of provocation.39

Abnormal tissue resistance, or increased permeability, can be induced by acid affecting the apical membranes and the junctional complexes of the stratum corneum, the main components of oesophageal barrier function.45 This permeability defect, with increased ion and water flow between the epithelial cells, results in dilated intercellular spaces (DIS) seen via microscopy. There is clear evidence from animal studies that exposure to gastric acid causes increased paracellular permeability and DIS in the oesophageal epithelium. In rabbit oesophagus exposed to acid in Ussing chamers, a reduced transmucosal electrical resistance, increased mannitol flux and DIS on electron microscopy46 were found. Moreover, altered epithelial cell expression of the tight‐junction proteins, claudin‐1 and claudin‐4, was demonstrated in experimental oesophagitis in rats.47 It was further shown that the combination of pepsin and acid exaggerated the barrier dysfunction and rapidly produced an irreversible lesion,48 which may contribute to the conversion of non‐erosive to erosive damage to the oesophageal epithelium. In GORD patients, DIS are found irrespective of endoscopy findings49 or acid reflux time,50 and NERD patients show abnormal responses in transepithelial potential difference to acid perfusion in vivo,51 implicating DIS as a primary pathogenic phenomenon. On the other hand, it was recently shown that the DIS in NERD and erosive disease were reversible to 92% by omeprazole treatment for 3 months,52 suggesting that the DIS is secondary to other pathophysiological events.

…exposure to gastric acid causes increased paracellular permeability and DIS in the oesophageal epithelium…

Stress and GORD

Apparently, oesophageal hypersensitivity, epithelial permeability and motility all contribute to the pathogenesis of heartburn, with acid reflux being a provoking factor in many instances. Stress and anxiety increase the perception of acid perfusion in humans, regardless of oesophageal mucosal injury.4 Stress studies have, however, failed to show a higher degree of acid reflux during stress exposure.53 On the other hand, stress affects permeability in stratified epithelia, such as skin,54 and it was recently demonstrated that stress also affects oesophageal permeability and vulnerability to acid/pepsin exposure.6 As intraepithelial nociceptors may be activated already by pH 5.2–6.9,55 increased oesophageal permeability and DIS during stress may contribute to the induction of heartburn at lower luminal acid concentrations than the usual pH<4.

In skin, acute stress triggers mast‐cell degranulation via activation of peptidergic nerves56 and alters barrier function.54 The evidence for a role of mast cells in stress‐induced permeability in the oesophagus is only suggestive.6 There is, however, clearly a role for mast cells in regulating oesophageal function, with mast‐cell degranulation and release of histamine into the oesophageal lumen during acute acid‐induced injury.57 Intestinal mast cells express CRH receptors58 and, recently, Wu et al. identified CRH receptor subtype 2 in the oesophageal mucosa of the rat,59 along with expression of the cognate CRH receptor ligands urocortin 1 and 2. This suggests that the CRH signalling system and mast cells are involved in the regulation of secretomotor activity in the oesophagus.

Barlow and Orlando have put forward a hypothesis that increased permeability and DIS in NERD patients causes pH and/or osmolarity changes in the intercellular spaces, leading to activation of nociceptors, which via reflex arcs give sustained oesophageal contractions, thereby inducing heartburn.39 This is an appealing theory; however, as the DIS normalise with omeprazole treatment, increased permeability seems to be a secondary phenomenon in NERD. A possible stress‐induced increase in permeability and DIS of the oesophageal epithelium may thereby fill an important gap in the pathophysiological understanding of GORD (fig 11).). The involvement of mast cells is credible from previous stress‐related gastrointestinal research, and could contribute to the barrier dysfunction as well as to the sensitisation of intramucosal nociceptors and neurons. Stress probably influences the intestinal barrier through autonomic pathways acting via enteric nerves and/or directly on mucosal mast cells, but the signalling pathways involved need further elucidation. In addition, the cellular origins of CRH and CRH‐related peptides in the intestinal mucosa need to be clarified.27

figure gt120691.f1
Figure 1 Stress model. Based on the current knowledge of the pathophysiology of GORD and stress mechanisms in the gastrointestinal tract, a model of stress effects on oesophageal permeability can be put forward. Stress, transmitted to the intestines ...

In clinical practice, the stress‐induced effects on oesophageal epithelial permeability may increase the risk of developing erosive disease in patients with acid reflux. Moreover, by lowering the threshold of response to acid, increased permeability and DIS may explain heartburn during “non‐significant” reflux in stress‐exposed individuals not responding to proton pump inhibitors. Dissecting the mechanisms involved in stress‐induced oesophageal permeability will give clues to additional therapeutic approaches in patients suffering from GORD.

In clinical practice, the stress‐induced effects on oesophageal epithelial permeability may increase the risk of developing erosive disease in patients with acid reflux.

Acknowledgements

The author's stress research is funded by the Swedish Research Council—Medicine (VR—M) and by the Swedish Society of Medicine (Ihre Foundation).

Abbreviations

CRH - corticotropin‐releasing hormone

DIS - dilated intercellular spaces

GORD - gastroesophageal reflux disease

IBS - irritable bowel syndrome

NERD - non‐erosive reflux disease

RMCPII - rat mast cell protease II

Footnotes

Competing interests: None.

References

1. Levenstein S. Peptic ulcer at the end of the 20th century: biological and psychological risk factors. Can J Gastroenterol 1999. 13753–759.759 [PubMed]
2. Mayer E A. The neurobiology of stress and gastrointestinal disease. Gut 2000. 47861–869.869 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
3. Collins S M. Stress and the gastrointestinal tract. IV. Modulation of intestinal inflammation by stress: basic mechanisms and clinical relevance, Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2001. 280G315–G318.G318 [PubMed]
4. Fass R, Tougas G. Functional heartburn: the stimulus, the pain, and the brain. Gut 2002. 51885–892.892 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Söderholm J D, Perdue M H. Effect of stress on intestinal mucosal functions. In: Johnson L, ed. Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract. Burlington, San Diego and London: Elsevier Academic Press, 2006. 763–780.780
6. Farré R, De Vos R, Geboes K. et al Critical role of stress in increased oesophageal mucosa permeability and dilated intercellular spaces. Gut 2007
7. McEwen B S. Stress, adaptation, and disease. Allostasis and allostatic load. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1998. 84033–44.44 [PubMed]
8. Selye H. A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature 1936. 13832
9. Bennett E J, Tennant C C, Piesse C. et al Level of chronic life stress predicts clinical outcome in irritable bowel syndrome. Gut 1998. 43256–261.261 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Levenstein S, Prantera C, Varvo V. et al Stress and exacerbation in ulcerative colitis: a prospective study of patients enrolled in remission. Am J Gastroenterol 2000. 951213–1220.1220 [PubMed]
11. Naliboff B D, Mayer M, Fass R. et al The effect of life stress on symptoms of heartburn. Psychosom Med 2004. 66426–434.434 [PubMed]
12. Soderholm J D, Yang P C, Ceponis P. et al Chronic stress induces mast cell‐dependent bacterial adherence and initiates mucosal inflammation in rat intestine. Gastroenterology 2002. 1231099–1108.1108 [PubMed]
13. Velin A K, Ericson A C, Braaf Y. et al Increased antigen and bacterial uptake in follicle associated epithelium induced by chronic psychological stress in rats. Gut 2004. 53494–500.500 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Zareie M, Johnson‐Henry K, Jury J. et al Probiotics prevent bacterial translocation and improve intestinal barrier function in rats following chronic psychological stress. Gut 2006. 551553–1560.1560 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Ferrier L, Mazelin L, Cenac N. et al Stress‐induced disruption of colonic epithelial barrier: role of interferon‐gamma and myosin light chain kinase in mice. Gastroenterology 2003. 125795–804.804 [PubMed]
16. Qiu B S, Vallance B A, Blennerhassett P A. et al The role of CD4+ lymphocytes in the susceptibility of mice to stress‐induced reactivation of experimental colitis. Nat Med 1999. 51178–1182.1182 [PubMed]
17. Barclay G R, Turnberg L A. Effect of psychological stress on salt and water transport in the human jejunum. Gastroenterology 1987. 9391–97.97 [PubMed]
18. Santos J, Saperas E, Nogueiras C. et al Release of mast cell mediators into the jejunum by cold pain stress in humans. Gastroenterology 1998. 114640–648.648 [PubMed]
19. Posserud I, Agerforz P, Ekman R. et al Altered visceral perceptual and neuroendocrine response in patients with irritable bowel syndrome during mental stress. Gut 2004. 531102–1108.1108 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Saunders P R, Kosecka U, McKay D M. et al Acute stressors stimulate ion secretion and increase epithelial permeability in rat intestine. Am J Physiol 1994. 267(5 Pt 1)G794–G799.G799 [PubMed]
21. Demaude J, Salvador‐Cartier C, Fioramonti J. et al Phenotypic changes in colonocytes following acute stress or activation of mast cells in mice: implications for delayed epithelial barrier dysfunction. Gut 2006. 55655–661.661 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Kiliaan A J, Saunders P R, Bijlsma P B. et al Stress stimulates transepithelial macromolecular uptake in rat jejunum. Am J Physiol 1998. 275G1037–G1044.G1044 [PubMed]
23. Santos J, Saunders P R, Hanssen N P. et al Corticotropin‐releasing hormone mimics stress‐induced colonic epithelial pathophysiology in the rat. Am J Physiol 1999. 277G391–G399.G399 [PubMed]
24. Lenz H J, Raedler A, Greten H. et al Stress‐induced gastrointestinal secretory and motor responses in rats are mediated by endogenous corticotropin‐releasing factor. Gastroenterology 1988. 951510–1517.1517 [PubMed]
25. Lenz H J, Burlage M, Raedler A. et al Central nervous system effects of corticotropin‐releasing factor on gastrointestinal transit in the rat. Gastroenterology 1988. 94598–602.602 [PubMed]
26. Nakade Y, Fukuda H, Iwa M. et al Restraint stress stimulates colonic motility via central corticotropin‐releasing factor and peripheral 5‐HT3 receptors in conscious rats. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2007. 292G1037–G1044.G1044 [PubMed]
27. Tache Y, Bonaz B. Corticotropin‐releasing factor receptors and stress‐related alterations of gut motor function. J Clin Invest 2007. 11733–40.40 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Tache Y, Perdue M H. Role of peripheral CRF signalling pathways in stress‐related alterations of gut motility and mucosal function. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2004. 16(Suppl 1)137–142.142 [PubMed]
29. Castagliuolo I, Lamont J T, Qiu B. et al Acute stress causes mucin release from rat colon: role of corticotropin releasing factor and mast cells. Am J Physiol 1996. 271(5 Pt 1)G884–G892.G892 [PubMed]
30. Chatzaki E, Crowe P D, Wang L. et al CRF receptor type 1 and 2 expression and anatomical distribution in the rat colon. J Neurochem 2004. 90309–316.316 [PubMed]
31. Theoharides T C, Letourneau R, Patra P. et al Stress‐induced rat intestinal mast cell intragranular activation and inhibitory effect of sulfated proteoglycans. Dig Dis Sci 1999. 44(8 Suppl)87S–93S.93S [PubMed]
32. Castagliuolo I, Wershil B K, Karalis K. et al Colonic mucin release in response to immobilization stress is mast cell dependent. Am J Physiol 1998. 274(6 Pt 1)G1094–G1100.G1100 [PubMed]
33. Santos J, Yang P C, Soderholm J D. et al Role of mast cells in chronic stress induced colonic epithelial barrier dysfunction in the rat. Gut 2001. 48630–636.636 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Grotjohann I, Schmitz H, Fromm M. et al Effect of TNF alpha and IFN gamma on epithelial barrier function in rat rectum in vitro. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000. 915282–286.286 [PubMed]
35. Soderholm J D, Streutker C S, Yang P C. et al Transcellular permeability defect in the ileum of Crohn's disease mediated by TNFα. Gut 2004. 531817–1824.1824 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
36. Cenac N, Coelho A M, Nguyen C. et al Induction of intestinal inflammation in mouse by activation of proteinase‐activated receptor‐2. Am J Pathol 2002. 1611903–1915.1915 [PubMed]
37. Jacob C, Yang P C, Darmoul D. et al Mast cell tryptase controls paracellular permeability of the intestine. Role of protease‐activated receptor 2 and beta‐arrestins. J Biol Chem 2005. 28031936–31948.31948 [PubMed]
38. Crowe S E, Perdue M H. Anti‐immunoglobulin E‐stimulated ion transport in human large and small intestine. Gastroenterology 1993. 105764–772.772 [PubMed]
39. Barlow W J, Orlando R C. The pathogenesis of heartburn in nonerosive reflux disease: a unifying hypothesis. Gastroenterology 2005. 128771–778.778 [PubMed]
40. Robles‐Chillida E M, Rodrigo J, Mayo I. et al Ultrastructure of free‐ending nerve fibres in oesophageal epithelium. J Anat 1981. 133227–233.233 [PubMed]
41. Sarkar S, Hobson A R, Furlong P L. et al Central neural mechanisms mediating human visceral hypersensitivity. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2001. 281G1196–G1202.G1202 [PubMed]
42. Tougas G, Spaziani R, Hollerbach S. et al Cardiac autonomic function and oesophageal acid sensitivity in patients with non‐cardiac chest pain. Gut 2001. 49706–712.712 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
43. Fass R, Naliboff B, Higa L. et al Differential effect of long‐term esophageal acid exposure on mechanosensitivity and chemosensitivity in humans. Gastroenterology 1998. 1151363–1373.1373 [PubMed]
44. Balaban D H, Yamamoto Y, Liu J. et al Sustained esophageal contraction: a marker of esophageal chest pain identified by intraluminal ultrasonography. Gastroenterology 1999. 11629–37.37 [PubMed]
45. Orlando R C, Lacy E R, Tobey N A. et al Barriers to paracellular permeability in rabbit esophageal epithelium. Gastroenterology 1992. 102910–923.923 [PubMed]
46. Tobey N A, Hosseini S S, Argote C M. et al Dilated intercellular spaces and shunt permeability in nonerosive acid‐damaged esophageal epithelium. Am J Gastroenterol 2004. 9913–22.22 [PubMed]
47. Asaoka D, Miwa H, Hirai S. et al Altered localization and expression of tight‐junction proteins in a rat model with chronic acid reflux esophagitis. J Gastroenterol 2005. 40781–790.790 [PubMed]
48. Tobey N A, Hosseini S S, Caymaz‐Bor C. et al The role of pepsin in acid injury to esophageal epithelium. Am J Gastroenterol 2001. 963062–3070.3070 [PubMed]
49. Tobey N A, Carson J L, Alkiek R A. et al Dilated intercellular spaces: a morphological feature of acid reflux—damaged human esophageal epithelium. Gastroenterology 1996. 1111200–1205.1205 [PubMed]
50. Caviglia R, Ribolsi M, Maggiano N. et al Dilated intercellular spaces of esophageal epithelium in nonerosive reflux disease patients with physiological esophageal acid exposure. Am J Gastroenterol 2005. 100543–548.548 [PubMed]
51. Carlsson R, Fandriks L, Jonsson C. et al Is the esophageal squamous epithelial barrier function impaired in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease? Scand J Gastroenterol 1999. 34454–458.458 [PubMed]
52. Calabrese C, Bortolotti M, Fabbri A. et al Reversibility of GORD ultrastructural alterations and relief of symptoms after omeprazole treatment. Am J Gastroenterol 2005. 100537–542.542 [PubMed]
53. Bradley L A, Richter J E, Pulliam T J. et al The relationship between stress and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux: the influence of psychological factors. Am J Gastroenterol 1993. 8811–19.19 [PubMed]
54. Choi E H, Brown B E, Crumrine D. et al Mechanisms by which psychologic stress alters cutaneous permeability barrier homeostasis and stratum corneum integrity. J Invest Dermatol 2005. 124587–595.595 [PubMed]
55. Steen K H, Reeh P W. Sustained graded pain and hyperalgesia from harmless experimental tissue acidosis in human skin. Neurosci Lett 1993. 154113–116.116 [PubMed]
56. Singh L K, Pang X, Alexacos N. et al Acute immobilization stress triggers skin mast cell degranulation via corticotropin releasing hormone, neurotensin, and substance P: A link to neurogenic skin disorders. Brain Behav Immun 1999. 13225–239.239 [PubMed]
57. Feldman M J, Morris G P, Dinda P K. et al Mast cells mediate acid‐induced augmentation of opossum esophageal blood flow via histamine and nitric oxide. Gastroenterology 1996. 110121–128.128 [PubMed]
58. Cao J, Papadopoulou N, Kempuraj D. et al Human mast cells express corticotropin‐releasing hormone (CRH) receptors and CRH leads to selective secretion of vascular endothelial growth factor. J Immunol 2005. 1747665–7675.7675 [PubMed]
59. Wu S V, Yuan P Q, Wang L. et al Identification and characterization of multiple corticotropin‐releasing factor type 2 receptor isoforms in the rat esophagus. Endocrinology 2007. 1481675–1687.1687 [PubMed]

Articles from Gut are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group